<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Lupton Fawcett LLP - Openbrief » Dispute Management</title>
	
	<link>http://www.openbrief.com</link>
	<description>An update service from Lupton Fawcett LLP</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/Openbrief_dispute-management" /><feedburner:info uri="openbrief_dispute-management" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:feedFlare href="?format=xml" src="http://www.logos.com/media/blog/feedburner/browser_chicklet.png">Subscribe with Your Browser</feedburner:feedFlare><item>
		<title>Misleading Advertising - a recent ASA decision</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_dispute-management/~3/x5KzKj-v5o0/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2010/08/23/misleading-advertising-a-recent-asa-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:31:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Kingscott</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Business Advisory Services]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Business Regulation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law &amp; Regulatory]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Defence &amp; Prosecution]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Dispute Management]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=802</guid>
		<description>The ASA Council (Non-broadcast) has recently held a retailer in breach of the CAP Code for having insufficient stock to meet anticipated demand.  It found that internet retailer, Simply Be, has breached the CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 16.4 (Availability of products), 27.4 (Sales promotion rules) and 30.1 (Availability), by an email it [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_dispute-management/~4/x5KzKj-v5o0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2010/08/23/misleading-advertising-a-recent-asa-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2010/08/23/misleading-advertising-a-recent-asa-decision/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>The costs risks inherent in refusing to Mediate or in delaying Mediation</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_dispute-management/~3/XDMdQqyHK04/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/the-costs-risks-inherent-in-refusing-to-mediate-or-in-delaying-mediation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:42:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Houghton</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Dispute Management]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/the-costs-risks-inherent-in-refusing-to-mediate-or-in-delaying-mediation/</guid>
		<description>It has been the position for some time (Dunnet v Railtrack in 2002) that a party who is successful at trial or appeal (and would therefore normally be entitled to expect to receive its costs from the other side), may be at risk of not being awarded some, or all, of those costs, if they [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_dispute-management/~4/XDMdQqyHK04" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/the-costs-risks-inherent-in-refusing-to-mediate-or-in-delaying-mediation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/the-costs-risks-inherent-in-refusing-to-mediate-or-in-delaying-mediation/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal provides welcome clarification</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_dispute-management/~3/JOTfPM1xXyE/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/court-of-appeal-provides-welcome-clarification/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:34:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Johnson</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Dispute Management]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/court-of-appeal-provides-welcome-clarification/</guid>
		<description>The Court of Appeal’s decision in the matter of Gaston Siborurema v (1) Office of the Independent Adjudicator (“OIA”) (2) London South Bank University (“LSBU”) [2007] EWCA Civ 1365 has provided clarity on two important issues concerning the OIA and, by extension, Higher Education Institutions (“HEIs”). 
Although dealt with in the Court of Appeal Mr [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_dispute-management/~4/JOTfPM1xXyE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/court-of-appeal-provides-welcome-clarification/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2008/02/26/court-of-appeal-provides-welcome-clarification/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Management and staff costs successfully claimed in litigation in the UK</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_dispute-management/~3/gY4wL_y36i0/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/07/04/management-and-staff-costs-successfully-claimed-in-litigation-in-the-uk/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Houghton</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Dispute Management]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=11</guid>
		<description>The decision of the Court of Appeal in Aerospace Publishing Ltd -v- Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 3 has provided helpful clarification as to the recoverability of the costs of management and staff time in litigation and the requirements to be met to do so. Key requirements to be proved are that a) [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_dispute-management/~4/gY4wL_y36i0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/07/04/management-and-staff-costs-successfully-claimed-in-litigation-in-the-uk/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/07/04/management-and-staff-costs-successfully-claimed-in-litigation-in-the-uk/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Tenant’s CVA fails to shield parent company guarantor from rent liability</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Openbrief_dispute-management/~3/cVg_qdQ1V9o/</link>
		<comments>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/07/04/tenants-cva-fails-to-shield-parent-company-guarantor-from-rent-liability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2007 13:27:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Houghton</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Dispute Management]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openbrief.com/?p=10</guid>
		<description>In 2006 the electrical retailer Powerhouse proposed a controversial &amp;#8216;corporate voluntary arrangement&amp;#8217; (CVA) which would allow the closure of its loss making stores but to keep open its profitable ones. Powerhouse hoped to pay a fraction of the rent due to its landlords for the loss making stores which were to be closed. The proposal [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Openbrief_dispute-management/~4/cVg_qdQ1V9o" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/07/04/tenants-cva-fails-to-shield-parent-company-guarantor-from-rent-liability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.openbrief.com/index.php/2007/07/04/tenants-cva-fails-to-shield-parent-company-guarantor-from-rent-liability/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss>

